Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Thumpalumpacus]

And I keep repeating to you brain dead conspiracy idiots that it takes literally weeks of work by hundreds of people to rig a building to collapse...  It would have taken an army of people working over a long period, involve extensive deconstruction and removal of outer walls and concrete and so forth.

And we the debunkers of the "official" conspiracy theory keep ignoring you because it has nothing to do with the point.  In fact, I have never heard anyone disagree with that point.  Of course it takes weeks if not months to rig a building the size of WTC 7 for demolition.  And doing it surreptitiously would make it that much more difficult.  So we really need an investigation in order to find out how they did it right under the noses of building security.  Maybe New York state could conduct its own investigation.  They have jurisdiction.  Or New York City, perhaps.  They have jurisdiction also.

I did not write this passage which you quoted and replied to.  I don't like using personal attacks in a debate most times, and have striven very hard in this discussion to avoid it -- even though you haven't returned the courtesy.

[AtheistMoFo]

Yep, they conspired and were dumb enough to write their conspiracy in a document for the whole world to read...

Wouldn't be the first time real life criminals took their cue from a Hollywood movie.

Some number of years ago -- probably in the 1980's give or take -- there was a movie about an author who was also a psychopathic murderer.  She wrote a murder mystery novel describing a murder scene, then later her boyfriend was found murdered exactly as it was described in the book.  The book was her alibi.  "Nobody would be stupid enough to write a book about a murder and then commit murder in exactly that same way."

You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity

I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

[The Skeletal Atheist]

You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity

I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

You've been a condescending asshole this entire thread, so drop that fucking line.

If you paid any attention to the forum in general you would know that Joseph knows his shit when it comes to physics.

Check here: viewforum.php?f=81

See who has stated a large amount of the threads there.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

I suspect the answer is found in a complete citation of Newton's First Law.  I have emphasized the relevant portion:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Gravity is the external force causing stuff to collapse. It kicks in when the structure resisting gravity can no longer do so.

[AtheistMoFo]

Firstly, I'm not a theist of any sort, as I reject any and all gods.
Secondly, all advice is rejectable, depending on its utility or lack thereof.
Thirdly, please link to the post wherein I "denied" a physical law you've propounded.

AtheistMoFo wrote:
No, of course I do not consider the invasion of iraq to have benefitted the American government. What ever gave you that idea?

The part where you said that no government does things which harms itself. The logical inference is that given the citation of 9/11 for that war, you consider that war to have benefited the government.
...
The question was, does it benefit the government?. The answer is a resounding no. Our prestige and standing in international relations has been gravely harmed, our finances have been gravely distorted,

AtheistMoFo wrote:
Furthermore, I do definitely believe that you, Rocky, Stromboli, and everyone else who approves of torture are yourselves harming not only the American government, but also the American people and the image of America as a nation abroad. You probably don't realize that in the eyes of civilized people, you torture supporters are as disdained and despised as those who commit torture.

I'm not sure why you think I approve of torture, but I can assure you that this premise of yours is incorrect in my case. I won't therefore bother rebutting this; it is an ad homeneim attack, and not only unworthy of any reply beyond a casual "fuck off", it is also evidence of how weak your argument is, that you are grasping at such slender reeds as assumptions about my opinions which have absolutely no basis in fact or documentation.

First of all, the last part of what you said.

You probably did not see my post to Josephpalazzo, so I will reiterate.  You (collectively) have misquoted me every step of the way.  Demanding that I furnish proof of the Twin Towers coming down at free-fall even though I never said nor implied it did.  Demanding corrobrating evidence that the plot was carried out by the U.S. government even though I never said nor implied that to be the case.  Demanding proof of the Twin Towers being brought down by nano-thermite, demanding I prove how the Twin Towers were rigged for demolition, etc, although I never made any claims about the Twin Towers at whatsoever.

So if you (collectively) are going to attribute statements to me which I never said, never implied, there is a little tit for tat for you.

Here are my basic claims:
? Free-fall did occur, even though only briefly
? Free-fall means that all of the potential energy available is being converted into kinetic energy
? If 100% of the potential energy is being used for accelerating the building to the ground, from whence the energy to crush concrete and twist steel

Those are my factual scientific claims which are being disputed.

Here are my logical claims:
? Guilt for the the crime of 9/11 has never been established in a court of law, only a kangaroo court conducted by the media
? Crime investigators traditionally begin their investigation by looking at who benefitted from the crime, but it was ignored in this case
? In addition to motive, it is normal to look at who had means and opportunity, but the only suspects ever even considered in this case were members of al qaeda
? Crime scenes are normally sealed off and examined in minute detail, and forensic evedence collected and preserved, but not in this case
? Numerous highly unlikely events are accepted without question as fact, whereas higly likely scenarios are not even considered

Do you, Thumpalumpacus, deny that the members of PNAC on the whole benefitted greatly from the attacks of 9/11?  Or do you believe they suffered as a consequence, just like ordinary Americans?

Does ANYONE reading this deny that the members of PNAC benefitted far more than Afghanistan, al quaeda, Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the American people, the image of the United States of America in the eyes of the world?  

Tell me, WHO GAINED?  WHO SUFFERED?

[Insult to Rocks]

Firstly, I'm not a theist of any sort, as I reject any and all gods.
Secondly, all advice is rejectable, depending on its utility or lack thereof.
Thirdly, please link to the post wherein I "denied" a physical law you've propounded.

AtheistMoFo wrote:
No, of course I do not consider the invasion of iraq to have benefitted the American government. What ever gave you that idea?

The part where you said that no government does things which harms itself. The logical inference is that given the citation of 9/11 for that war, you consider that war to have benefited the government.
...
The question was, does it benefit the government?. The answer is a resounding no. Our prestige and standing in international relations has been gravely harmed, our finances have been gravely distorted,

AtheistMoFo wrote:
Furthermore, I do definitely believe that you, Rocky, Stromboli, and everyone else who approves of torture are yourselves harming not only the American government, but also the American people and the image of America as a nation abroad. You probably don't realize that in the eyes of civilized people, you torture supporters are as disdained and despised as those who commit torture.

I'm not sure why you think I approve of torture, but I can assure you that this premise of yours is incorrect in my case. I won't therefore bother rebutting this; it is an ad homeneim attack, and not only unworthy of any reply beyond a casual "fuck off", it is also evidence of how weak your argument is, that you are grasping at such slender reeds as assumptions about my opinions which have absolutely no basis in fact or documentation.

First of all, the last part of what you said.

You probably did not see my post to Josephpalazzo, so I will reiterate.  You (collectively) have misquoted me every step of the way.  Demanding that I furnish proof of the Twin Towers coming down at free-fall even though I never said nor implied it did.  Demanding corrobrating evidence that the plot was carried out by the U.S. government even though I never said nor implied that to be the case.  Demanding proof of the Twin Towers being brought down by nano-thermite, demanding I prove how the Twin Towers were rigged for demolition, etc, although I never made any claims about the Twin Towers at whatsoever.

So if you (collectively) are going to attribute statements to me which I never said, never implied, there is a little tit for tat for you.

Here are my basic claims:
? Free-fall did occur, even though only briefly
? Free-fall means that all of the potential energy available is being converted into kinetic energy
? If 100% of the potential energy is being used for accelerating the building to the ground, from whence the energy to crush concrete and twist steel

Those are my factual scientific claims which are being disputed.

Here are my logical claims:
? Guilt for the the crime of 9/11 has never been established in a court of law, only a kangaroo court conducted by the media
? Crime investigators traditionally begin their investigation by looking at who benefitted from the crime, but it was ignored in this case
? In addition to motive, it is normal to look at who had means and opportunity, but the only suspects ever even considered in this case were members of al qaeda
? Crime scenes are normally sealed off and examined in minute detail, and forensic evedence collected and preserved, but not in this case
? Numerous highly unlikely events are accepted without question as fact, whereas higly likely scenarios are not even considered

Do you, Thumpalumpacus, deny that the members of PNAC on the whole benefitted greatly from the attacks of 9/11?  Or do you believe they suffered as a consequence, just like ordinary Americans?

Does ANYONE reading this deny that the members of PNAC benefitted far more than Afghanistan, al quaeda, Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the American people, the image of the United States of America in the eyes of the world?  

Tell me, WHO GAINED?  WHO SUFFERED?

You do realize that the U.S had had an extremely strained relationship with Iraq since the First Gulf War in 1990, 7 years before PNAC was founded, right? And that the U.S was not the only participants in the fight against Iraq and Afghanistan? Lots of people had grievances with the abysmal and oppressive governments of those two countries. If the conspiracies objective was to garner support for an attack on said countries, they did not have to go to the extent that they supposedly did.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So if you (collectively) are going to attribute statements to me which I never said, never implied, there is a little tit for tat for you.

How about, you know, treating me like an individual?

? If 100% of the potential energy is being used for accelerating the building to the ground, from whence the energy to crush concrete and twist steel

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."

In other words, that kinetic energy had to go somewhere when the ground wouldn't permit its continuation.  Part of it went to bending the steel -- kind of like how a car gets bent out of shape when it hits a tree.  I mean, steel is harder than wood, but a tree will fuck your ride up.  Ask me how I know.

Do you, Thumpalumpacus, deny that the members of PNAC on the whole benefitted greatly from the attacks of 9/11?  Or do you believe they suffered as a consequence, just like ordinary Americans?

Define how they benefited, so that I might weigh your question in proper context? Did Dick Cheney make more money as a result? Did John Bolton look like a dickhead for years on national TV?

Does ANYONE reading this deny that the members of PNAC benefitted far more than Afghanistan, al quaeda, Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the American people, the image of the United States of America in the eyes of the world?  

Tell me, WHO GAINED?  WHO SUFFERED?

How does that prove anything? It is at best circumstantial evidence, and that is only in a best-case (from your POV) scenario.  It disregards the idea that businessmen can be, and are famous for being, opportunistic.  Price-gouging is a perfect example of that. Say that a guy owns a productive well  in a land struck by drought.  Once the drought intensifies and cattle start dying, the farmers need to water their herds.  The guy who owns the well jacks up his prices.

Did he cause the drought?  Or did he simply benefit from it?

In a similar fashion, while the neocons may have identified a circumstance that would enable them to act on their vision of foreign policy, that doesn't mean that they brought it about, any more than the well owner stopped the rain.

At its heart, this is an appeal to emotion on your part (ALL CAPS!), and should be disregarded.

[stromboli]

Forget it, Thump. This fool is either the biggest troll on the forum of a complete idiot.

[Manodo]

You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity

I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

If I hold a glass in the air (mv = 0, kinetic energy = 0), and let go, what happens?

[Damarcus]

You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity

I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

If I hold a glass in the air (mv = 0, kinetic energy = 0), and let go, what happens?

Tiny little illuminati rockets propel it towards the ground. Duh.

[theory816]

Never have there been a argument where I hope im grotesquely wrong.

[Damarcus]

I dont think you guys understand that truthers rather be wrong then right.  

well, they think they are right. Any evidence against the conspiracy is just evidence of the conspiracy. It's a no-win situation trying to argue with them really. They refuse change their minds, ignoring common sense, basic reasoning and they'll even suspend the laws of physics if you push them hard enough. Can be fun to watch though.

[josephpalazzo]

You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity

I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

If you had taken the trouble to read my blog you would have realized that it takes a lot more than your high school physics to understand it. That you can't make even that distinction speaks loudly about your credential in regard to physics. Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Forget it, Thump. This fool is either the biggest troll on the forum of a complete idiot.

I don't doubt that he's trolling. But it's a good workout, y'know?

[AtheistMoFo]

You've been a condescending asshole this entire thread, so drop that fucking line.

Just trying to fit in with the crowd.

Being relatively new to the forum, and having had terms like tin-foil hat, moron, theist, idiot, fucktard, and asshole thrown at me, naturally I assumed that it was normal around here to be condescending, deprecating and arrogant.

It is my opinion that the most likely scenario is probably what really happened.  And in your (collective) opinion, the least likely scenario is probably what really happened.  You have a right to your own opinion.  You do not have a right to your own facts.  Free-fall of WTC 7 is a fact.  And the way it fell so uniformly, the only way for that to have happened would be for ALL of the 80-some support columns to fail at exactly the same instant.  That is a fact.

Nobody has offered up any explanation of how all of those columns could have failed simultaneously.  Therefore, I offer the most logical explanation.  Anyone who has a better explanation ought to just come out with it.